Dismissed

Bahujan Mahasabha Delhi Pradesh v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Delhi HC11 Jul 2019W.P.(C)/6894/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition seeking a layout change and land allotment for a temple on unauthorized land belonging to the respondent. The Court held the petition unmerited as public land cannot be claimed by such societies and discouraged such judicial recourse, dismissing the petition with costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks Association.

Bahujan Mahasabha Delhi Pradesh Vs Delhi Urban… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6894/2016 & CM No. 30811/2016

¶4

BAHUJAN MAHASABHA DELHI PRADESH ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Vikas Bapurao Pakhidden, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD ..... Respondent Through

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 11.07.2019

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as

¶11

under:-

¶12

“(a) issue writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent for change in the layout plan in respect of land measuring 100 sq. yards on which dr. Ambedkar Temple / Bahwan is constructed in Nangloi Phase - II from toilet block.

¶13

(b) issue writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to allot to Petitioner 100 sq yards of land for dr. Ambedkar Temple / Bahwan at price fixed by the Respondent;

¶14

The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and states that it is engaged in the upliftment of the down-trodden and persons belonging to the scheduled castes.

¶15

The petitioner seeks allotment of a plot of land admeasuring 100 sq

¶16

yards, located at Nagloi Phase-II. The petitioner states that Dr Ambedkar Temple/Bhawan has been constructed on the said plot.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not constructed the said property and the same was constructed some years ago by the local residents. The petitioner now seeks to take over the management of the said property and has accordingly sent various representations to various authorities. Since, the representations have not been acceded to as yet, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶18

Admittedly, the said structure has been raised unauthorizedly on land belonging to Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB). It is also apparent from the above that the petitioner has no right to allotment of the said public land. Considering that the structure has been raised unauthorizedly, the concerned authorities are required to take steps for removal of the same. It is common knowledge that such constructions are raised unauthorizedly as a ruse to grab the public land. Such endeavours should be dealt strictly and swiftly by the concerned authorities.

¶19

As stated above, the petitioner has no right to insist on allotment of the land in question or to insist that the layout of the plan be changed. It is well settled that recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to protect legal rights (see Calcutta Gas Company & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal: AIR (1962) SC 1044 ). In this view, the present petition is unmerited.

¶20

This Court is of the view that recourse to court for such relief ought to

¶21

be discouraged. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at ₹10,000/-. The cost shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks Association within a period of two weeks, from today.

¶22

The pending application is also disposed of.

¶23

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶24

JULY 11, 2019 MK

Bahujan Mahasabha Delhi Pradesh v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahujan Mahasabha Delhi Pradesh v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Pooran Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Damanjit Kaur Vs Union of India

Sandeep Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Inditex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Zainab Moojid Neahmah Vs Joint Secretary (Foreigners) & Anr.

Pradeep Vihar Resident'S Welfare Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sonia Vihar Iron & Timber & Ors. Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Shanti Kaur Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.

Shri Pooran Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Damanjit Kaur Vs Union of India

Sandeep Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Karan Singh & Anr. Vs Ram Mukhi & Ors.

Bela Sethi Vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors.

Dinesh Mohan Sinha Vs Union of India & Anr.